Did Jesus Really Exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2011, 02:45 PM
RE: Did Jesus Really Exist?
(19-07-2011 12:08 PM)myst32 Wrote:  All evidence points to the first humans being black... not white..

Yes, but i bet they weren't anywhere near so pretty!

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2011, 03:41 PM
 
RE: Did Jesus Really Exist?
(19-07-2011 11:27 AM)Shannow Wrote:  
Quote:Do you know of any good collection of sources? I've heard so many different claims about his historical accuracy but have never seen a good collection of these sources and how we know who wrote what.


Hi Zach,

My top 10 non-biblical historians...I need a new hobby... Wink

Remember none of these are eye-witnesses...

1. Tacitus – Calls Christianity a ‘mischievous superstition’ that ‘breaks out’ across Judea. Does mention Christ as a kind of footnote.
2. Pliny the Younger (mentions Christ)
3. Josephus – One of his seminal works, the Testimonium Flavium was bastardized by Christians in the 3rd/4th century...but he was Jewish, was educated and actually served in the Roman army. I like him...but plenty don't.
4. The Babylonian Talmud (Possibly mentions Christ, infers that Christianity is Jewish apostasy...lol)
5. Lucian of Samosata (no mention of a divine figure, he calls Jesus a man, mentions a new sect of Jews called Christians)
6. Suetonius – 1 mention in the 25th chapter of 1 book. He mentions followers of ‘Chrestus’ .....Doesn’t mention Jesus specifically.
7. Philo – Christians love this idea that he might have been in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion. If I’d witness the son on an immortal die, I’d write about it...strange Philo doesn’t.
8. Mara Bar-Serapion...Syrian philosopher who writes about the death of a 'Wise-King'...majority of historians think he's talking about Jesus.
9. Thallus - Is an interesting histoiran who doesn't mention Jesus, but mentions an eclipse at roughly the time of the crucifixion. Thallus actually wrote a massive history from the Trojan War to about AD 50. Unfortunately much of it has been lost...but the bits we do have don't mention Jesus...further evidence that he didn't rate that highly in the historical consciousness of the time.
10. I'm going to say Celsus at number 10....he comes about 200 years after Christ, but I really like him because he was openly critical of the accuracy and ethics of the gospels....he'd fit right in here...

There are loads of 'em...I'm sure some of the other forum members like Robertus or Mark Fulton know more...

Thanks, that's a very helpful list Smile
Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2011, 05:31 PM
Wink RE: Did Jesus Really Exist?
If Josephus so heavily believed the "jesus story, then why did he not convert? He lived his whole life out as a jew, never converting. Though his writings were quoed frequently in his own time by other historians, no other historian ever quoted anything related to jesus. ( because he most likely NEVER wrote anything about jesus.) It is believed possible that Eusebius (c. 324) was the one who added the text to the mostly blank page, nearly 400 years later. Bishop Eusebius, a self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first to quote this paragraph in 340 AD. He most likely is the villain who put it there.

Testimonium Flavianum;
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html
notes that no other contemporary writers that quoted Josephus ever quoted this "startling revelation" !

[Image: TESTIMONIUM-AMBROSIANUS.jpg]

This is the only photo I have been able to find of the Josephus text. The top paragraph is Josephus own handwriting, the second paragraph is the account of jesus. I will now use magnification to show the different styles.

[Image: 2differentJosephushands.png]

Note the Josephus handwriting seems to start the lines a bit low, then run uphill.

The top paragraph shows only two lines ( Bottom two ) tipping down at the end, where the other lines seem to favor going upward.

Then, after the space in the middle of the forth line ( green arrows ) it starts high, then dips, then raises and dips again. There seems to be a noticable difficulty in judging the position of the imaginary line here. This person cannot write in a straight line. A second person's writing here, I believe. Definitely a different writer than that of the first 3 1/2 lines. I believe that this writer ( # 2? ) may have been left handed. I'm ambidextrous and that looks like my left hand writing. I would call this type of writing "wild". It literally runs all over the place, as if the writer has no sense of position on the paper.

The first writer's (?) 3 lines start low, and goes high. The consistancy seems pretty good there. The top paragraph's 2nd handwriting is very sloppy, & it ( lines 3.5, 4, 5, & 6) looks like they were written by a lawyer, or doctor.

The bottom paragraph has much more uniformality. The lines shapes are far more consistant in this lower paragraph. The bottom paragraph humps high in the center, low on the ends. ( red arrows ) I believe that this person was sitting farther back from the table(?) when he/she was writing this. This person's handwriting looks like my right hand writing when I'm stretching to reach the table. If I were sideways to a table with my right arm stretched to write on it, while taking dictation from someone I'm facing, my handwriting would look very much like this. ( I tried this to confirm my suspicions )

At this point I wish I had a better image to work with. I'm betting there are other identifying handwriting nuances that are not visible due to the magnification distortion.

If I were taking notes to report what I seen, my handwriting would resemble writer 1.
If I had a bad night in the bar, got my right hand broken and went home to write about it while still drunk, my handwriting would resemble writer 2. ( left handed )
If I were creating a document intended to be gone over in fine detail, I would write it as consistantly as I could, to create the "feel" of an official" document.
If I were not ambidextrous, I would not be able to produce any two of these writing styles. I seriously believe there are 3 writers at work here.

There is nothing here other than text size to leave any evidence that these paragraphs were written by the same person. I personally believe there were 3 contributors.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...onium.html
notes that no other contemporary writers that quoted Josephus ever quoted this "startling revelation" !

http://www.josephus.org/testhist.htm

Quoted in full by Eusebius, c. 324 CE - With no other "true" historic documents from the time of "christ", this is the only time stamped "proof" of jesus. The Josephus paragraph about jesus was added on after the original text was finished. The original writer (top paragraph) was likely left handed. The writer of the lower paragraph about jesus was likely right handed. (<-- My personal opinion, not substantiated anywhere ) This page becomes the typical christians say REAL, and scholars say FAKE!

Though the christians torched many historical documents, wiping out entire libraries of historical pages, they chose to protect this one, above all others. Probably because it was the one they had doctored. All contradictory writings were destroyed by the christians. Of those, Justus of Tiberias, had been a contemporary of Josephus, not to mention in the same regional area at the same time. If a story of the "jesus" proportion had been occuring then, he too, would have written about it.
Though his documents were destroyed, not all of the reading and translations were.

" I have read the chronology of Justus of Tiberias ... and being under the Jewish prejudices, as indeed he was himself also a Jew by birth, he makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

– Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 9th Century

Seem unlikely? How did Photius know of Justus of Tiberias had he not seen the documents 900 years later? Isn't that just before, or about when the catholic rampage started?

Oxymoron: "Religious teaching"
"Simple common sense goes out the window when religion comes in through the door." Me (Blasphemy Fan )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2011, 08:46 AM
RE: Did Jesus Really Exist?
Hi BF.

I don't think the picture you've analysed is original Joesphus. It's from a document called the Codex Ambrosianus. It's wildly dated between the 6th and 11th century, so was collated a minimum of 500 years after Joesephus...I expect it's a copy of a copy of a copy...the handwriting you're looking at is a scribe somewhere...not the man himself.

I don't know of any original Joesphus writings existing, all we have are copies. Which would be fine if it wasn't for Christians...

I completly agree that the early Christian Church bastardized the work of authors at the time of Jesus and this compromises sources. The fact that they did this is supported by lots of sources and is both abhorrent and dishonest.

There are some interesting 'other' bits of Joesphus apart from the TF...and he does mention Jesus again, outside of that inflamatory passage...when he's talking about James's trial.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2011, 04:39 PM
RE: Did Jesus Really Exist?
(20-07-2011 08:46 AM)Shannow Wrote:  Hi BF.

I don't think the picture you've analysed is original Joesphus. It's from a document called the Codex Ambrosianus. It's wildly dated between the 6th and 11th century, so was collated a minimum of 500 years after Joesephus...I expect it's a copy of a copy of a copy...the handwriting you're looking at is a scribe somewhere...not the man himself.

I don't know of any original Joesphus writings existing, all we have are copies. Which would be fine if it wasn't for Christians...

I completly agree that the early Christian Church bastardized the work of authors at the time of Jesus and this compromises sources. The fact that they did this is supported by lots of sources and is both abhorrent and dishonest.

There are some interesting 'other' bits of Joesphus apart from the TF...and he does mention Jesus again, outside of that inflamatory passage...when he's talking about James's trial.

I went to the page you posted the link to,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Codex_Ambrosianus.jpg ) I then blew up the images they display there, and it's not even the same written language. Codex Ambrosianus was assembled some time later, but claims to have historic documents in it. If this is the original, which even I am beginning to doubt, then it had to have passed through the hands of Eusebius ( Liar for god ) This could also be a forgery that Eusbius himself created. This perhaps is more likely, but still does not explain the multiple writers of this document. If he were creating a forgery, I would think that he would do it all himself, to keep the forgery a secret. For him, to be exposed as a fraud, would have destroyed his "unchallenged" ability to record, and translate history. If he did indeed have the original with space left one some pages, it would be the perfect opprotunity to add his own text to the original. ( if he could match the ink(?) color and texture of a 300 year old document. ) The christian church of that time may have assisted him in any cover up, since he was lying for god. You also have to remember that the people back then weren't the "brightest candles on the christmas tree". Smile It would not take much to fool them.

"Testimonium Flavianum" from Codex Ambrosianus (Mediolanensis) F. 128 superior, the oldest extant manuscript. - This was under the image I posted.

Ambrosius Mediolanensis. A.D. 380 - ' Eusebius died in 339. His papers were likely added to the "Antiquities of the Jews" for their alledged historic accuracy.

On the Wiki page for Antiquities_of_the_Jews, it's leading me to believe that the manuscripts questionably ARE REAL. That would make the image I located legitimate, though honestly, I won't bet the bank on it.

"Manuscripts" from;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews


This apparently IS the text that causes so much to - do in the mythological circles. The "Testimonium Flavianum" is in the Codex Ambrosianus. The pages are refered to as "Extant Copies" meaning "still in existence". Who did the copies(?) or when is a good question. Perhaps Josephus made his own copies for distribution, I don't know...I haven't found any dates yet, but the Eusebius copies would have been done between 300 ad and 339 ad, when he died at age 76.
Do to the details of his works, and painstaking research he did, his works were rarely, if ever challenged. He could have easily added the historic accounts of jesus in his "official copies" and noone would have questioned it.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/josephus.html
Theoretically, the "Testimonium Flavianum" IS the work of Josephus himself. It is in the "Antiqtuities of the Jews". There is so much round talk throughout the pages on this that it's impossible for me to tell if this is accurate, or not. This is the case with most religious issues though...isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea
Life story of Eusebius - (god's liar)

Is the above shown document the original? WTF knows ?????????????????

Oxymoron: "Religious teaching"
"Simple common sense goes out the window when religion comes in through the door." Me (Blasphemy Fan )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2011, 04:25 AM
RE: Did Jesus Really Exist?
Nice one BF, that's really interesting stuff, thanks for doing the digging.

So I was looking at the wrong codex! The Codex Mediolanesis...have you got a link that dates it at AD 380? The (rather crappy) Wiki article seems to put it at 10th/11th Century? This gives it a date of 11th C as well...but I've no idea of the validity of the website.

There was a person called Abrosius Mediolanenis who was around in AD 380...but I can't work out if he's the man behind the Codex or not.

According to this article on Wiki it says:

Quote:As is common with ancient texts, The Antiquities of the Jews survives only in medieval copies. The manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century, are all Greek minuscules, and all have been copied by Christian monks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2011, 05:04 AM
RE: Did Jesus Really Exist?
(19-07-2011 01:39 PM)watchman Wrote:  Just for information Guys , they have a similar thread going over on Rational Skepticism, titled ,
"What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?"

It was started back in Feb 2010 and is still going strong ,so far it runs to 786 pages covering 15,719 posts .

Just so you know ,this one can run and run.(bring sandwiches).

Wow! That's a lot of reading.

As for my own opinion (which is probably worthless, LOL!) I think the gospels are very loosely based on some guy (probable named Yesu) who was a teacher, led a failed coup against the temple priests and was executed for it. But I don't think he was anything the modern Christian would recognize.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2011, 05:44 AM
RE: Did Jesus Really Exist?
(21-07-2011 04:25 AM)Shannow Wrote:  Nice one BF, that's really interesting stuff, thanks for doing the digging.

So I was looking at the wrong codex! The Codex Mediolanesis...have you got a link that dates it at AD 380? The (rather crappy) Wiki article seems to put it at 10th/11th Century? This gives it a date of 11th C as well...but I've no idea of the validity of the website.

There was a person called Abrosius Mediolanenis who was around in AD 380...but I can't work out if he's the man behind the Codex or not.

According to this article on Wiki it says:

Quote:As is common with ancient texts, The Antiquities of the Jews survives only in medieval copies. The manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century, are all Greek minuscules, and all have been copied by Christian monks.

Right off the top, this is the first one. I have to go for this morning, but I will find the others when I get back.

This one was one of my favorites, since they had most of it translated. The best way of dating it, is by reading it.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/C...tion18.htm

I seen it on a page about Eusebius also, looking for that.

google chrome crashing again, BRB

Oxymoron: "Religious teaching"
"Simple common sense goes out the window when religion comes in through the door." Me (Blasphemy Fan )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2011, 12:20 AM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2011 02:21 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Did Jesus Really Exist?
Agree. But IMHO it was not so much a coup attempt against the priests themselves, (as he didn't seem t o pay much attention to them at all), as it was an act of civil disobedience by an already unpopular, (in the opinion of the "authorities" who were already on the lookout for him-"At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds" John 8:59) itinerant preacher, (and there were many of those), who performed a threatening act against the temple based economy of the city. During that period a huge, if not most, part of the economic system of that city, (Jerusalem), was the temple based economy. You had to pay a fee to bathe to prepare, fees to prepare and eat the right stuff, fees to buy the right animals for your offering, a fee to prepare the offerings, a fee to get into the temple, etc., etc., etc., and you had to pay the fees ONLY in Jewish currency for ritual related activities, (thus the need for the "money changers" since Roman currency was the common currency). When he went and overturned their desks, (tables), it was the last straw, and they had to eliminate him, as he was a threat to the economic lifeblood of the city. I have heard it estimated they went through 20,000+ chickens/birds per day, and many hundreds/thousands of sheep and goats per day during festival periods for the offerings. It must have been quite the mess, to say nothing of all the coming and going and keeping and raising and feeding and disposal of all those animals. It was a huge business enterprise, and he, (while not a REAL threat, in the sense that he could have ever begun to stop it all), was a temporary but serious inconvenience to the powers-that-be in the temple economy, (who would have had great influence with the priests, who also got paid fees to do their thing). It was, as is now, all about the money, (and convincing the people they needed to "do" the sacrifices).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-07-2011, 10:51 AM
 
RE: Did Jesus Really Exist?
Okay, so if he didn't exist, then cool. It means that Christianity, Catholism, Iglesia, etc. is even more disprovable. But if he did exist, is it a problem for us atheists? If not, how? If yes, what can we do to fix it when it comes to a debate?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: